reSee.it - Related Video Feed

My mother used to say that even in terrible situations, there is always some good that can come out of it if you search for it. We are currently at a crucial point in the world economy, which only happens every few generations. During a recent secure meeting, a top military official mentioned that between 1919 and 1946, around 60 million people died. However, we managed to establish a more peaceful world order since then. Now, things are shifting again, and a new world order is emerging. It is our responsibility to lead and unite the rest of the free world in this endeavor.

I met Prime Minister Orban 36 years ago and saw his vision for a new Hungary. The Ukraine war stems from the US's 1994 NATO expansion project, despite promises to Gorbachev. This was a deep state project that every president after Clinton was a part of. Yesterday was historic because Trump and Putin spoke, and the new defense secretary admitted Ukraine won't join NATO. This is the basis for peace. For 30 years, America has been playing a game of risk, seeking world hegemony. Marco Rubio acknowledged a multipolar world. The US must stop attacking others and respect other countries. With mutual respect, we can achieve a golden age, investing in technology instead of war.

The international order has been built over generations. Ordinary people are too small-minded to govern themselves. Order and progress require individuals to surrender their rights to an all-powerful sovereign.

In this conversation, Brian Berletic discusses the current collision between the United States’ global strategy and a rising multipolar world, arguing that U.S. policy is driven by corporate-financier interests and a desire to preserve unipolar primacy, regardless of the costs to others. - Structural dynamics and multipolar resistance - The host notes a shift from optimism about Trump’s “America First” rhetoric toward an assessment that U.S. strategy aims to restore hegemony and broad, repeated wars, even as a multipolar world emerges. - Berletic agrees that the crisis is structural: the U.S. system is driven by large corporate-financier interests prioritizing expansion of profit and power. He cites Brookings Institution’s 2009 policy papers, particularly The Path to Persia, as documenting a long-running plan to manage Iran via a sequence of options designed to be used in synergy to topple Iran, with Syria serving as a staging ground for broader conflict. - He argues the policy framework has guided decisions across administrations, turning policy papers into bills and war plans, with corporate media selling these as American interests. This, he says, leaves little room for genuine opposition because political power is financed by corporate interests. - Iran, Syria, and the Middle East as a springboard to a global confrontation - Berletic traces the current Iran crisis to the 2009 Brookings paper’s emphasis on air corridors and using Israel to provoke a war, placing blame on Israel as a proxy mechanism while the U.S. cleanses the region of access points for striking Iran directly. - He asserts the Arab Spring (2011) was designed to encircle Iran and move toward Moscow and Beijing, with Iran as the final target. The U.S. and its allies allegedly used policy papers to push tactical steps—weakening Russia via Ukraine, exploiting Syria, and leveraging Iran as a fulcrum for broader restraint against Eurasian powers. - The aim, he argues, is to prevent a rising China by destabilizing Iran and, simultaneously, strangling energy exports that feed China’s growth. He claims the United States has imposed a global maritime oil blockade on China through coordinated strikes and pressure on oil-rich states, while China pursues energy independence via Belt and Road, coal-to-liquids, and growing imports from Russia. - The role of diplomacy, escalation, and Netanyahu’s proxy - On diplomacy, Berletic says the U.S. has no genuine interest in peace; diplomacy is used to pretext war, creating appearances of reasonable engagement while advancing the continuity of a warlike agenda. He references the Witch Path to Persia as describing diplomacy as a pretext for regime change. - He emphasizes that Russia and China are not credibly negotiating with the U.S., viewing Western diplomacy as theater designed to degrade multipolar powers. Iran, he adds, may be buying time but also reacting to U.S. pressure, while Arab states and Israel are portrayed as proxies with limited autonomy. - The discussion also covers how Israel serves as a disposable proxy to advance U.S. goals, including potential use of nuclear weapons, with Trump allegedly signaling a post-facto defense of Israel in any such scenario. - The Iran conflict, its dynamics, and potential trajectory - The war in Iran is described as a phased aggression, beginning with the consulate attack and escalating into economic and missile-strike campaigns. Berletic notes Iran’s resilient command-and-control and ongoing missile launches, suggesting the U.S. and its allies are attempting to bankrupt Iran while degrading its military capabilities. - He highlights the strain on U.S. munitions inventories, particularly anti-missile interceptors and long-range weapons, due to simultaneous operations in Ukraine, the Middle East, and potential confrontations with China. He warns that the war’s logistics are being stretched to the breaking point, risking a broader blowback. - The discussion points to potential escalation vectors: shutting Hormuz, targeting civilian infrastructure, and possibly using proxies (including within the Gulf states and Yemen) to choke off energy flows. Berletic cautions that the U.S. could resort to more drastic steps, including leveraging Israel for off-world actions, while maintaining that multipolar actors (Russia, China, Iran) would resist. - Capabilities, resources, and the potential duration - The host notes China’s energy-mobility strategies and the Western dependency on rare earth minerals (e.g., gallium) mostly produced in China, emphasizing how U.S. war aims rely on leveraging allies and global supply chains that are not easily sustained. - Berletic argues the U.S. does not plan for permanent victory but for control, and that multipolar powers are growing faster than the United States can destroy them. He suggests an inflection point will come when multipolarism outruns U.S. capacity, though the outcome remains precarious due to nuclear risk and global economic shocks. - Outlook and final reflections - The interlocutors reiterate that the war is part of a broader structural battle between unipolar U.S. dominance and a rising multipolar order anchored by Eurasian powers. They stress the need to awaken broader publics to the reality of multipolarism and to pursue a more balanced world order, warning that the current trajectory risks global economic harm and dangerous escalation.

We are at an inflection point in the world economy and globally. This occurs every few generations. In a recent secure meeting, a top military official mentioned that between 1900 and 1946, 60 million people died. However, since then, we have established a more stable liberal world order. Now, things are shifting again, and a new world order is emerging. It is crucial for us to take the lead and unite the free world in this endeavor.

The speaker emphasizes the importance of maintaining the liberal international world order with the United States and Europe at its core, especially during a time of shifting global dynamics. They assert the necessity of leading the new world order and uniting the free world. The speaker claims many desire two world orders, but that even the US and China need a single global order. A clip featuring President Macron of France is referenced, with the claim that Macron stated the need for only one global superpower. The speaker suggests the Obama Biden administration and the Davos Euro administration are collectively working towards this goal.

We have the opportunity to create a new world order for ourselves and future generations. It's not a crisis, but a necessary step. This new world order is important and should be pursued. It's a chance for the president of the United States to use this disaster to establish a new world order, a phrase his father used once before. We often talk about the need for a new world order.

In this historic moment, we have made significant progress in ending conflicts and the cold war. We now have the opportunity to create a new world order, where nations are governed by the rule of law instead of chaos. Our success will lead to a credible United Nations that can fulfill the vision of its founders through peacekeeping efforts.

I want to talk about peace, not imposed by force, but real peace that allows nations to thrive and build a better future. Peace for all, not just for Americans. Peace that brings hope and prosperity for everyone. Peace that is essential for a meaningful life.

In this historic moment, we have made great progress in ending conflict and cold war. We now have the opportunity to create a new world order, where the rule of law governs nations instead of the law of the jungle. We are confident that we will succeed in establishing this new world order. With a credible United Nations, we can fulfill the promise and vision of the UN's peacekeeping role.

The conversation centers on Israel’s war with Iran and its broader regional implications, with Speaker 0 (an Israeli prime minister) offering his assessment and critiques, and Speaker 1 pushing for clarification on motives, strategy, and policy directions. Key points about the Iran war and its origins - Speaker 0 recalls learning of the war on February 28 in Washington, and states his initial reaction: the United States’ claim that Iran is an enemy threatening annihilation of Israel is understandable and something to be supported, but questions what the next steps and the endgame would be. - He argues that Iran, through proxies like Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis, posed a global and regional threat by arming missiles and pursuing nuclear capacity, and asserts that Iran deserved punishment for its actions. He raises the question of whether the outcome could have been achieved without war through a prior agreement supervised by international bodies. - He emphasizes that the lack of a clear, articulated next step or strategy undermines the legitimacy of the war’s continuation, even as he concedes the necessity of addressing Iran’s nuclear ambitions. - He also notes that the war affected the global economy and regional stability, and stresses the importance of coordinating a path that would end hostilities and stabilize the region. Speaker 1’s analysis and queries about U.S. interests and Netanyahu’s influence - Speaker 1 questions the rationale behind U.S. involvement, suggesting that strategic interests around the Strait of Hormuz and Iran’s nuclear program were not the only drivers, and cites reporting that Netanyahu presented Iran as weak to push Trump toward regime change, with limited pushback within the U.S. administration. - He asks how much influence Netanyahu had over Trump, and whether the war was pushed by Netanyahu or driven by broader strategic calculations, including concerns about global economic consequences. - He notes that, even if Iran was making concessions on nuclear issues, the war’s continuation raises concerns about broader U.S. and global interests and the potential damage to European and allied relationships. Israeli-Lebanese dimension and Hezbollah - The discussion moves to Lebanon and the question of a ground presence in the South of Lebanon. Speaker 1 asks whether Netanyahu’s administration intends annexation of Lebanese territory and whether there is a real risk of such plans, given the recent destruction of villages and the broader context of regional diplomacy. - Speaker 0 distinguishes between military necessity and political strategy. He says the ground operation in southern Lebanon is unnecessary because Hezbollah missiles extend beyond 50 kilometers from the border, and he argues for negotiating a peace process with Lebanon, potentially aided by the international community (notably France), to disarm Hezbollah as part of a larger framework. - He asserts that there are voices in the Israeli cabinet that view South Lebanon as part of a Greater Israel and would seek annexation, but he insists that such annexation would be unacceptable in Israel and that disarming Hezbollah should be tied to a broader peace with Lebanon and Iran’s agreement if a negotiations-based settlement is reached. - The idea of integrating Hezbollah into the Lebanese military is rejected as artificial; disarmament is preferred, with the caveat that Hezbollah could not be dissolved as a military force if Iran remains a principal backer. Speaker 0 suggests that a Hezbollah disarmed and integrated into Lebanon’s political-military system would require careful design, potentially with international participation, to prevent Hezbollah from acting as an independent proxy. War crimes and accountability - The participants discuss imagery like a soldier breaking a statue of Jesus and broader allegations of misconduct during the Gaza war. Speaker 0 condemns the act as outrageous and unacceptable, while Speaker 1 notes that individual soldier actions do not represent an entire army and contrasts external reactions to abuses with a broader critique of proportionality in Gaza. - Speaker 0 acknowledges that there were crimes against humanity and war crimes by Israel, rejects genocide, and endorses investigations and accountability for those responsible, while criticizing the political leadership’s rhetoric and the behavior of certain ministers. - They touch on the controversial death-penalty bill for Palestinians convicted of lethal attacks, with Speaker 0 characterizing the Israeli government as run by “thugs” and criticizing ministers for celebratory conduct, while Speaker 1 argues that such rhetoric inflames tensions. Two-state solution and long-term vision - The conversation culminates in Speaker 0 presenting a long-standing two-state plan: a two-state solution based on 1967 borders, with East Jerusalem as the capital of Palestine, and the Old City of Jerusalem not under exclusive sovereignty but administered by a five-nation trust (Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Palestine, Israel, and the United States). - He asserts that this approach represents an alternative to the current government’s policies and reiterates his commitment to opposing Netanyahu’s administration until it is replaced. - They close with mutual acknowledgment of the need for a durable peace framework and reiterate that Hezbollah’s disarmament must be a condition for normalization between Israel and Lebanon, while cautioning against artificial or compromised arrangements that would leave Hezbollah armed or entrenched.

There is talk of a new world order, with various leaders mentioning it. The Clinton administration is considering its foreign policy in relation to this new world order. George Bush has also mentioned it, emphasizing its importance. The idea of a new world order is seen as significant and there is a belief that we have the opportunity to shape it. This new world order is expected to be different from what we are used to.

I wanted to prevent terrorism in our country, but I couldn't talk about it before. However, now I talk about it all the time. We had no attacks like the World Trade Center or those in other countries. Now we're getting involved in the Middle East again, spending trillions of dollars and causing death and destruction. It's a shame. We defeated ISIS in just four months, beating their caliphate completely.

"For the first time in history, foreign policy has become global." "Communications are instantaneous and there exist problems which are genuinely not national like environment, nuclear proliferation and simulations." "So in this sense, we are living in a new world and a new world order will emerge." "The only question is whether it will arise out of intellectual and moral insight and by design or whether it will be forced on mankind by a series of catastrophes." "That's the challenge of our period and it makes it, to my mind, one of the most exciting periods in which anybody can live."

Richard Wolff and Glenn discuss the future of the West, NATO, Europe, and the international economic system. - The central dynamic, according to Wolff, is the rise of China and the West’s unpreparedness. He argues that the West, after a long era of Cold War dominance, is encountering a China that grows two to three times faster than the United States, with no sign of slowing. China’s ascent has transformed global power relations and exposed that prior strategies to stop or slow China have failed. - The United States, having defeated various historical rivals, pursued a unipolar, neoliberal globalization project after the Cold War. The collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of that era left the U.S. with a sense of “manifest destiny” to shape the world order. But now time is on China’s side, and the short-term fix for the U.S. is to extract value from its allies rather than invest in long-run geopolitics. Wolff contends the U.S. is engaging in a transactional, extractive approach toward Europe and other partners, pressuring them to concede significant economic and strategic concessions. - Europe is seen by Wolff as increasingly subordinated to U.S. interests, with its leadership willing to accept terrible trade terms and militarization demands to maintain alignment with Washington. He cites the possibility of Europe accepting LNG imports and investments to the U.S. economy at the expense of its own social welfare, suggesting that Europe’s social protections could be jeopardized by this “divorce settlement” with the United States. - Russia’s role is reinterpreted: while U.S. and European actors have pursued expanding NATO and a Western-led security architecture, Russia’s move toward Greater Eurasia and its pivot to the East, particularly under Putin, complicates Western plans. Wolff argues that the West’s emphasis on demonizing Russia as the unifying threat ignores the broader strategic competition with China and risks pushing Europe toward greater autonomy or alignment with Russia and China. - The rise of BRICS and China’s Belt and Road Initiative are framed as major competitive challenges to Western economic primacy. The West’s failure to integrate and adapt to these shifts is seen as a strategic misstep, especially given Russia’s earlier openness to a pan-European security framework that was rejected in favor of a U.S.-led order. - Within the United States, there is a debate about the proper response to these shifts. One faction desires aggressive actions, including potential wars (e.g., Iran) to deter adversaries, while another emphasizes the dangers of escalation in a nuclear age. Wolff notes that Vietnam and Afghanistan illustrate the limits of muscular interventions, and he points to domestic economic discontent—rising inequality, labor unrest, and a growing desire for systemic change—as factors that could press the United States to rethink its approach to global leadership. - Economically, Wolff challenges the dichotomy of public versus private dominance. He highlights China’s pragmatic hybrid model—roughly 50/50 private and state enterprise, with openness to foreign participation yet strong state direction. He argues that the fixation on choosing between private-market and public-control models is misguided and that outcomes matter more than orthodox ideological labels. - Looking ahead, Wolff is optimistic that Western economies could reframe development by learning from China’s approach, embracing a more integrated strategy that blends public and private efforts, and reducing ideological rigidity. He suggests Europe could reposition itself by deepening ties with China and leveraging its own market size to negotiate from a position of strength, potentially even joining or aligning with BRICS in some form. - For Europe, a potential path to resilience would involve shifting away from a mindset of subordination to the United States, pursuing energy diversification (including engaging with Russia for cheaper energy), and forming broader partnerships with China to balance relations with the United States and Russia. This would require political renewal in Europe and a willingness to depart from a “World War II–reboot” mentality toward a more pragmatic, multipolar strategy. - In closing, Wolff stresses that the West’s current trajectory is not inevitable. He envisions a Europe capable of redefining its alliances, reconsidering economic models, and seeking a more autonomous, multipolar future that reduces dependency on U.S. leadership. He ends with a provocative suggestion: Europe might consider a realignment toward Russia and China as a way to reshape global power balances, rather than defaulting to a perpetual U.S.-led order.

In this historic moment, we have made progress in ending conflict and cold war. We now have the opportunity to create a new world order, where the rule of law governs nations instead of the law of the jungle. We are confident in our success and believe in the potential of a credible United Nations to fulfill its peacekeeping role and realize the vision of its founders.

The moment of truth is approaching as the previous world order fades away. We are witnessing a fundamental clash of principles that will shape international relations in the future. This conflict goes beyond power struggles and geopolitical influence; it will determine whether we can create a world that fosters development and resolves contradictions through mutual respect for cultures and civilizations, without coercion or force. The outcome will be crucial for our collective future.

For the first time in history, policy has become global. Communications are instantaneous, and there exist problems which are genuinely not national like environment, nuclear proliferation, and simulations. So in this sense, we are living in a new world and a new world order will emerge. The only question is whether it will arise out of intellectual and moral insight and by design or whether it will be forced on mankind by a series of catastrophes. That's the challenge of our period and it makes it, to my mind, one of the most exciting periods in which anybody can live.

We can create a new world order for ourselves and future generations.

It is very likely Trump might be elected again, which would likely be a death blow to what remains of the global order. Many politicians present a false dichotomy, a false binary vision of the world. They act as if one has to choose between patriotism and globalism, between being loyal to one's nation and being loyal to some kind of global government.

In these troubled times, our objective is to create a new world order that is free from terror, just, and secure. We aim for a world where nations can prosper and live in harmony, regardless of their location. For centuries, people have sought peace amidst countless wars. Today, we are striving to bring forth a new world, different from what we have known. It is a world where the rule of law replaces chaos, where nations share the responsibility for freedom and justice, and where the strong respect the rights of the weak. We have the opportunity to create a new world order, governed by the rule of law, and the United Nations can play a crucial role in achieving this vision. This is not just about one country, but a grand idea of uniting diverse nations to achieve the universal goals of peace, security, freedom, and the rule of law.

The speaker suggests that we are in a transition between old and new orders. They question how we can retain positive aspects from the old order while avoiding a chaotic new world order. Another speaker views it as a transition of eras rather than orders, but acknowledges that the international order built after 1945 will evolve. They emphasize that we are entering a new era and have the opportunity to shape it. The core principles and institutions of the existing order will be adapted to address current challenges.

We will not fight with one hand tied behind our back. We hope this fighting will be short and casualties will be minimal. We have made progress in ending conflict and the cold war. We have the opportunity to create a new world order, where the rule of law governs nations. When we succeed, we can establish a credible United Nations that fulfills the vision of its founders. We have no argument.

For the first time, policy is global due to instantaneous communication and non-national problems like the environment and nuclear proliferation. A new world order will emerge, either through intellectual and moral insight and design, or forced upon mankind by catastrophes. This challenge makes our period an exciting one to live in.

There is talk of a new world order, with various leaders mentioning it. The Clinton administration is focused on establishing their foreign policy and shaping this new world order. It is seen as a big idea and an opportunity for change. The world we know is evolving, and there is a chance for us, especially the younger generation, to lead in shaping this new world order.